[Mission 2024] STATIC QUIZ, 27 December 2023 – Polity

Solution: c)

The Indian constitution borrows heavily from the constitution of other nations.

Suppose if the constituent assembly of India consisted of British administrators and only members of princely states, we wouldn’t have acknowledged the framing of the constitution as just and democratic.

Solution: b)

Originally, Article 19 (1) (f) and article 31 contained the right to property, i.e. to acquire, hold and dispose of property subject to the right of State to compulsory acquisition for public purposes by authority of law.

However, right to property ceased to be a fundamental right when the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978 omitted sub-clause(f) of Article 19 (1) and Article 31 from the Constitution.

The Right to Property is a legal right available to any person. Article 300-A provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.

Solution: b)

The framers of the Constitution, being aware of the temple entry movement, advisedly provided a separate power under Article 25(2)(b) which empowers the state to enact laws “providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions” to “all classes and sections of Hindus”. Hence, the issue of regulating secular aspects of religious practice is distinct from providing access to worship. This is why there are separate laws for temple control and temple entry. They co-exist; one does not depend on the other.

Solution: d)

The directive principles are meant for promoting the ideal of social and economic democracy. They seek to establish a ‘welfare state’ in India.

However, unlike the Fundamental Rights, the directives are non-justiciable in nature, that is, they are not enforceable by the courts for their violation. Yet, the Constitution itself declares that ‘these principles are fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the state to apply these principles in making laws’.

Solution: c)

The Kedar Nath ruling on sedition (Kedarnath Singh v State of Bihar)

A five-judge Constitution Bench overruled the earlier rulings of the high courts and upheld the constitutional validity of IPC Section 124A. However, the court attempted to restrict its scope for misuse. The court held that unless accompanied by an incitement or call for violence, criticism of the government cannot be labelled sedition. The ruling restricted sedition only insofar as seditious speech tended to incite “public disorder”- a phrase Section 124A itself does not contain but was read into it by the court.